Breaking our Latin-1 assumptions (2017)

Re:Breaking our Latin-1 assumptions (2017) by marginalia_nu on Sunday June 19, 2022 @12:23AM (#31796152)

Western print letters are fairly faithful replicas of western handwriting, specifically that of humanist minuscule (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_minuscule>). Like there's been some ligatures and shorthand, but for the most part, this type of script has always been an extremely printing press-friendly affair with distinct letters of reasonably uniform width.

Cursive has existed alongside print letters going all the way back to antiquity.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Breaking our Latin-1 assumptions (2017) by jahewson on Sunday June 19, 2022 @01:43AM (#31796450)

True indeed, though it was not these Italian scripts that were first to be printed, but the equally typesetting-friendly Gothic blackletter. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackletter

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Breaking our Latin-1 assumptions (2017) by tengwar2 on Sunday June 19, 2022 @05:26AM (#31797702)

But humanist minuscule is not a cursive script: the letters are separate. Cursive does not mean just hand-written, but written in a style designed for haste achieved by not lifting the pen between letters.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Breaking our Latin-1 assumptions (2017) by marginalia_nu on Sunday June 19, 2022 @05:48AM (#31797848)

Right, my point is they have existed alongside each other almost as long as the latin alphabet as we recognize it. Cursive is a bit younger, but they both trace from antiquity.

Both forms existed before print, during the inception of print, and long after print.

[ Parent | on HN ]